LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[SE22_2020er]

Dulwich central. Thank for your post. I'm getting really annoyed with certain people trying to push their divisions and making out that people are 'pro-closure' or 'pro-car'. Really peoples - grow up and act like adults.

I decided that there are too many cars (and vans) on our streets so I'll do what I can and stop driving. I'm middle-aged overweight lady but I get it that I can't carry on driving in London as I used to. if I can do it then pretty much everyone else can. the problem is not the ltns it's the big increase in driving in London over the last years that cause all the traffic. what is needed is less people driving cars and vans.

What do you want to do peoples? congestion charge?, increase road tax? better cycle lanes? tax on delivery vans? or do you want to just type and moan and make divisions between peoples. Grow up people and actually try and make a difference to cut down on traffic rather than endlessly post here and achieve a fat 0.

rant over

[malumbu]

Test post as I have been having problems posting. Perhaps that is a good thing!

[malumbu]

Still wont let me post the full text so maybe the link will work. Nxjen said things succinctly.

Here's an article on TfL measures 8 years ago [tfl.gov.uk] So it is nonsense that to say the authorities haven't been doing anything. The campaign which included schools may not have been effective but how many of you took note?

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets with all due respect - you are using very emotive language again - exaggerating? Hyperbole?

This doesn't help productive rational debate.

Nobody is saying 'everything is awesome'.

People recognise that there will be some displacement until it beds in and that this is a trial. Councillors know this.

Why aren't you calling to push them to do more on main roads?

Making driving less convenient is one thing they have to do.

What *is* awesome is twice as many people are cycling through Dulwich.

I know people who live on the very nice roads near Eyenella, Beauval etc who are fit and healthy but complain they now have to drive round the s circular to get to West Dulwich. They could walk in 10 minutes or cycle in 5.

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are many pro-closure lobbyists who claim

> there are no negatives associated with these

> closures that everything is awesome because of

> them. We even have councillors claiming on public

> meetings that traffic on the displacement roads is

> no heavier than it has ever been. Now that's

> disingenuous.

>

> I also, hasten to add, that it was the same

> councillor who said LTNs were designed to channel

> traffic off side streets onto main roads.

>

> The pro-closure camp and council clearly dont want

> a rational debate about the pros and cons.

[alice]

DulwichCentral - When was Court Lane a ?Gridlocked Rat Run? ?

[Nigello]

I, for one, am miffed that the anti-LTN voices have stopped discussion of such measures. I want to see one (as did the council, before they got scared) outside Goodrich at Dunstan's where the road is narrowed already and where Waze, etc. send lots of over-large vehicles down, right next to (not a few yards, or more) a 800+ pupil primary school. Such was the zeal from people who don't live in a hotspot that a blanket ban was put in operation, it seems. The road here narrows (ironically as a safety measure from decades ago)to just over 2m - not the case on any other LTN street - right next to the school. I am in discussion with my MP the council for them to see sense and not to be blindsided by the well-organised and zealot-minded anti-LTN brigade.

[malumbu]

Link again to earlier TfL work, supported for example by asthma charities https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2012/september/londoners-encouraged-to-make-a-small-switch-to-curb-engine-emissions

Ultimately most of us make decisions on where to live, where to work, where to send our kids to school, what to buy, how to buy and where to buy, and leisure activities. This does not underestimate the improvements to our personal quality of life that car ownership for the masses has brought for the last six decades, but sometimes at a cost.

[ali2007]

This article sums this up for me:

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18616846.air-quality-voice-rosamund-kissi-debrah-slams-lee-green-ltn/

Rosamund Kissi-Debrah (whose daughter sadly passed away because of pollution and who is a campaigner for better air quality) is against LTN's because they do not solve the problem. They just move it elsewhere.

Photos of Underhill Road yesterday - gridlock in both directions at 5.15pm.

++++++++++++++++++++++

?I don?t blame people for wanting quieter roads, but they need to understand that they do not have the South Circular in the midst of their neighbourhood.

?People live on these main roads, and it?s the poorer people who live on them.

?Gloating that your children can now go out and play or cycle does not help things.

?Does that mean my children do not deserve to do that? These are questions people need to ask themselves.

?It is as if now that the traffic is not in their neighbourhood, they are not concerned where the traffic was.

?Because when I campaign, I don?t just campaign for my children, I campaign for all children. But some are more equal than others it appears,? she said.

The hope for reducing the traffic build up is that drivers will get frustrated and choose another route.

?You can?t just block off roads and give no other alternatives,? she said.

[alice]

Malumbo your idea of choice is illusory. Where we live, educate us to do with wealth/income.

[malumbu]

Nonsense, wealth is a limitation but you still have some choice. I chose to work in London. I chose to live in SE London. I could have lived in the Medway Towns where price of accommodation is cheaper and put up with an 1 1/2 commute. I could have stayed in the NW where cost of living is much cheaper.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets with all due respect - you are using very

> emotive language again - exaggerating? Hyperbole?

>

> This doesn't help productive rational debate.

>

> Nobody is saying 'everything is awesome'.

> People recognise that there will be some

> displacement until it beds in and that this is a

> trial. Councillors know this.

> Why aren't you calling to push them to do more on

> main roads?

> Making driving less convenient is one thing they

> have to do.

>

> What *is* awesome is twice as many people are

> cycling through Dulwich.

>

> I know people who live on the very nice roads near

> Eyenella, Beauval etc who are fit and healthy but

> complain they now have to drive round the s

> circular to get to West Dulwich. They could walk

> in 10 minutes or cycle in 5.

>

>

>

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > There are many pro-closure lobbyists who claim

> > there are no negatives associated with these

> > closures that everything is awesome because of

> > them. We even have councillors claiming on

> public

> > meetings that traffic on the displacement roads

> is

> > no heavier than it has ever been. Now that's

> > disingenuous.

> >

> > I also, hasten to add, that it was the same

> > councillor who said LTNs were designed to

> channel

> > traffic off side streets onto main roads.

> >

> > The pro-closure camp and council clearly dont

> want

> > a rational debate about the pros and cons.

I would argue that the pro-closure lobbyists don't want debate...they encourage us to "let it bed in" "give it time", yada yada yada. I am more than happy to debate it now but the council is refusing to do so...we have to "let it bed in", even though there is no sign, after 6 months of anything getting any better. Some might say they are using this to "ride out the storm" but of course they also say the objectors are a small vocal minority....what might they be scared of one wonders.....

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nonsense, wealth is a limitation but you still

> have some choice. I chose to work in London. I

> chose to live in SE London. I could have lived in

> the Medway Towns where price of accommodation is

> cheaper and put up with an 1 1/2 commute. I could

> have stayed in the NW where cost of living is much

> cheaper.

Wow...just wow....

[exdulwicher]

The pro-closure camp and council clearly dont want a rational debate about the pros and cons.

Rockets, I'm sorry but placing all this onto "the pro-closure lobby" is disingenuous at best if not a simple outright lie.

The vandalism of planters, the cutting of traffic count cables, the mis-use of data (and related to that the shouting down of any data that they don't like by claiming it's old, biased, flawed, produced by a cycling group, written by a cyclist...) and the creation of "echo chamber" debating spaces (primarily Facebook where it's easy for anyone to set up a group and then post inflammatory content, banning anyone who disagrees), the willingness to jump on any article by the Daily Mail, the use of hyperbole and opinion over factual debate and even the occasional violent threats against councillors can all be pointed solely at the anti-LTN lobby.

It's got to the point in some areas where trying to have a rational debate about LTNs is like trying to have a rational debate about Brexit. Fact-based issues get shouted down as Project Fear and there's an emotive "WE WON YOU LOST!" contingent of Leavers (not all of them certainly but a vocal minority) who refuse to listen and simply revert back to the hyperbole and opinion and mentions of the war. That's what a lot of the anti-LTN rhetoric comes across as and I'm not just referring to this forum or Dulwich, I've seen similar all over the UK.

Splitting it into pro/anti is not helpful to any of this - you'll find that most people have a range of opinion that places them pro some measures, anti others, ambivalent about some.

I think what is agreed by the vast majority of posters on here though is that as a general rule, something has to be done to curb the unacceptably high levels of traffic and that, coming out of a pandemic where public transport usage is at an all time low, it doesn't help anyone if we all revert to driving everywhere.

[Bicknell]

@exdulwicher im against the Dulwich LTN, so I guess im part of the anti LTN lobby, but i dont recognize any of the things you say. I think its okay to say that you dont like something, and criticize it, without being told youre all the things you've said about the Anti- LTN lobby here. Its hard to talk about it because people get heated but i dont think you can say thats the fault of one side or the other. Otherwise you're just as bad as the people youre criticizing aren't you? We agree weve got to reduce traffic. But I dont personally think you do that by taking it off some roads and putting it on others.

[DulwichCentral]

@Rockets

Saying the council is 'refusing to debate' is imo exaggerating (and therefore inflammatory?) because it's not true - they have had several public meetings lately, and have a number of feedback processes which have been posted here.

By saying 'what might they be scared of one wonders...' are you suggesting something underhand is going on? You seem to suggest that people who oppose the measures are a much larger group than the council think. But what evidence do you have of that?

Of course everyone here is entitled to their opinion, but rational debate relies on fact, not speculation.

[malumbu]

Rockets, just step back mate/mate-ess and let it go. I became obsessed with planing decisions in the late 00s. Started taking over my life. But even then I didn't resort to cheap insults. For a final time, we are all part of the problem. Love and peace.

[Rockets]

Ex- to be fair, remove the vandalism part (which we all agree is pointless, childish and beyond reproach and switch the Daily Mail for the Guardian on your comment below and you put that hat on many of the pro-closure lobby too! ;-)

The vandalism of planters, the cutting of traffic count cables, the mis-use of data (and related to that the shouting down of any data that they don't like by claiming it's old, biased, flawed, produced by a cycling group, written by a cyclist...) and the creation of "echo chamber" debating spaces (primarily Facebook where it's easy for anyone to set up a group and then post inflammatory content, banning anyone who disagrees), the willingness to jump on any article by the Daily Mail, the use of hyperbole and opinion over factual debate and even the occasional violent threats against councillors can all be pointed solely at the anti-LTN lobby.

Interesting info coming out from some of the research being done on who is behind a lot of the pro-closure twitter feeds in the area....Jill Simpson is one busy bee....whomever they actually are.....

I think it is clear the council is refusing to debate the issue. Two meetings (that they felt forced to have due to the pressure on them) that presented such one-sided information (the council's summary of the closures was some sort of joke wasn't it?) does not constitute proper debate or engagement with the broader community. They set up then cancelled the DV public meeting because they accidentally posted details in error. No date has been set for that meeting.

I do personally think that the number of people against the closures outweighs those in support because more people are living with the negative impact than the positive.

3000 people have signed the anti-lTN Dulwich e-petition. 1500 people have signed up to support One Dulwich, many hundreds of whom have lodged objections to the DV closures via the council process.

The Streetspace "consultation" websites have been inundated with people lodging their objections.

So yes, I do think the council are trying to avoid any public debate as they can't keep relying on mustering a few residents from Melbourne Grove to dominate the council meetings as they did on the first ED LTN online meeting...by the second one the anti-lovvy had got wise to the rip-off those residents had had on the process of being heard.

Nothing I see suggests a fair and balanced approach to the discussion thus far.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Dulwich central: to echo another question you haven?t answered when was court lane a grid locked rat run?!

Also regarding point c- the closed roads allow people who need to go to and from dulwich village, one of the most affluent areas in the region not from one side of dulwich to the other. What do you say to families like mine who aren?t fortunate enough to live in that area or have children attending schools there, who instead need to use the roads which take all the traffic from those roads. Or attend schools or nurseries on east

Dulwich grove which is so much more congested and polluted than it was before? Or the families living on east dulwich grove who have repeatedly said how much worse pollution is for them?

I think it?s ?bedded in? enough by now to see it?s failing surely.

As rockets point out the streetspace consultation and the petition shows the strength of feeling about this. Mostly about pollution on other streets than any complains about driving times/wanting to use cars

DulwichCentral Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there anybody here in the Dulwich debate who

> supports the LTN who doesn't ALSO want further

> measures on main roads? I doubt it.

>

> There is a mantra being repeated over and over

> here. As Rockets puts it, some kind of 'Nirvana'

> has been created for the 'lucky (selfish) few' who

> live on the filtered streets.

>

> A) those streets were initially chosen to be

> filtered because they were gridlocked rat-runs

> (not because 'wealthy selfish people' live on

> them)

>

> B) the people benefiting are not just the

> residents of those streets because:

>

> C) most importantly these streets are now ROUTES

> used by people who don't live on those streets.

> People who want to get from one end of Dulwich to

> the other using clean transport - they link up

> then with other ROUTES like Railton LTN, Ferndale

> LTN etc etc and other cycleways on main roads.

>

> To keep implying that the residents on the

> filtered streets are the *only ones* who benefit

> is simply not true.

>

> To keep suggesting that these people are selfish /

> uncaring / anti-social/ wealthy / socially unjust

> (and even racist) sadly does nothing but stir up

> unnecessary division.

>

> Yes, these people are no doubt relieved their

> horrible streets are better - and probably fully

> support more being done because they know how

> horrible it is to live on a gridlocked road. If

> there was more unity to push the council for more

> (instead of creating division) that would be so

> much more productive for ALL imho :)

[DulwichCentral]

@Dulwichgirl sorry if I missed you asking me about Court Lane but sometimes things get lost in the thread. Maybe as your children go to school on EDG (JAGS or ED charter?) you have never saw dulwich village at its worst?

Court lane had double the average amount of traffic for a residential street in Southwark, at times the same amount as lordship lane (an ?A? road). This was up until 8pm, so not just school traffic. All leading into the 5-arm junction with calton avenue, also at saturation point and gridlocked, and dulwich village - at near saturation. This is all in the evidence pack on the council website (google OHS evidence pack). Some here will say that's fake (which is a bit Trump like imo). I know someone who moved out it was so bad.

People in the shops and cafe at the village junction told me they saw near accidents all the time - with thousands of pedestrians / schoolchildren using the dangerous crossings. This is to get to state schools as well as private - so a mix of people.

The council said that the junction could not cope with what we now know to be a massive increase in traffic on residential roads due to Satnavs. I think there have been 3 consultations in 6 years. 2019 was a year long consultation with lots of public meetings.

I hope this is helpful because I think some people have come into this LTN debate without knowing why certain roads were filtered - and some just forget how bad it was. Not that I?m saying that?s you:) but since you ask what court lane was like, it was very bad.

Also, I'm 100% sure that the people who support the closure of court lane would also support measures on all the main roads. If there was more unity and everyone pulled together to push the council for more (not less) then I think that would be more productive.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dulwich central: to echo another question you

> haven?t answered when was court lane a grid locked

> rat run?!

[Dulwichgirl82]

But that?s not really answering my question, what would you say to those now living with the pollution from those roads. To those whose children?s lung are now exposed to worse quality air, possibly health complications. Saying people would ?support measures for main roads? while directing their traffic to other roads really isnt enough. And frankly what are you suggesting, closing lordship lane and east dulwich grove?

If you live on a road where you now have nose to tail traffic like EDG are you just expecting people to live with this to protect those going to and from the village. When you speak on unity that would be great, except would you be willing to have increased traffic on your roads to reduce it on the other roads.

[DulwichCentral]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But that?s not really answering my question.

Dulwich central: to echo another question you

> haven?t answered when was court lane a grid locked

> rat run?!

I think I did - at least the one you said I hadn't yet answered.

In answer to your other question and following on from what others have discussed here, I would support protected cycle lanes on main roads, reduced parking and 24/7 bus lanes (the parked cars on LLane block the buses and then cause congestion as the buses have to pull out) and road pricing and ULEZ ASAP. I think it would be more productive to push the council for those things urgently.

I don't think opening up residential roads to 'spread out' the traffic is a step in the right direction because it will just go back to how it was, I think it's better to move forwards not backwards if we genuinely want to reduce traffic overall (which I do) - I think its really important to push the council for *more* not less, because what has been proven is that by filtering residential roads people are more likely to switch to cycling or walking - which is an important part of reducing traffic overall.

[Metallic]

Council hiding behind Covid. No public meetings or door knocks, only chance encounters, leaving their dirty work up to trolls on twitter, some with countless twitter accounts, and a group of people on here who would have you believe black is white.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral, let me start by acknowledging that the Calton/Court Lane/DV junction has always been a problem. Why? Because it is the focal point of one of the only east/west routes across Dulwich.

Now the fake news element of the OHS numbers was not the numbers themselves but the way the council presented them. Let me explain.

Year on year the councils monitoring( actual monitoring not modelling) showed that traffic through the junction was decreasing every year (not enough I hasten to add to resolve the congestion issues there and also contrary to the current narrative that traffic has been increasing on side roads). Now during the roadworks to put in the last improvement works traffic decreased massively as it tried to avoid the queues caused by the roadworks. When the roadworks were removed traffic returned to the levels prior to the roadworks (albeit actually slightly less). The council used the increase after the roadworks to suggest a 47% increase in traffic - which was correct but they used it without the caveat that the roadworks had massively decreased traffic temporarily. They used it as a generic trojan horse to push for more changes suggesting that the 47% increase was consistent I.e. traffic has increased by 47% we have to do more. That was the fake news element and it formed the central tenet for their further OHS consultation. It was either a horrendous mistake or a deliberate manipulation of data to help their strategic initiative.

What was interesting as well was that the improvements the council put in did not improve the situation but made it worse. The councils own data showed an increase in both congestion and a moderate increase in pollution.

The challenge the DV closure has created is that that traffic is now going somewhere else and doesn't actually solve the bigger problem.

[Bicknell]

@DulwichCentral

Look at www.londonair.org.uk, go to Air Pollution, then Annual Pollution Maps, find Dulwich You can see which roads over legal limits (40) in 2016. Court Lane bad b ut roads around it much much worse. Yes I agree lets move forwards. but pusshing cars onto roads over legal pollution limits not the answer

[Penguin68]

Unless and until Southwark measures pollution on the roads it has pushed traffic into, and has sound measures 'before' as well, then we can assume that any figure quoted as to changes or improvements will be rubbish. So no changes here, then. What I will expect to be told is that the measures have improved conditions for the roads which have been closed and then told 'job done'.